|
|
|
Is the communication based on facts?
Is communication based on facts or imagination? Learn how journalists and the rest of us are being deceived in the field of science and morality
1. How are journalists and the rest of us deceived in the field of science?
In modern times, there is talk of the importance of fact-based communication. For example Helsingin sanomat, the largest daily newspaper in Finland, has advertised on its website: “There is a greater need for facts now than ever before”, and this is a good idea. However, the media do not understand that we can be deceived by Satan. My own argument and the teaching of the Bible is that each of us has at some point been more or less a victim of this deception. Only when we turn to God and Jesus and allow ourselves to be saved will our spiritual vision gradually begin to heal. We begin to understand what is true and false. In what area do lies appear? In general, they concern God, his existence, right and wrong, and the person of Jesus. For example, in the name of science, it is claimed that God’s creation work has never taken place. Likewise, it is claimed that life has been on Earth for hundreds of millions of years and that it all started with a simple stem cell itself. Through these things it is tried to deny the existence of God, and I personally (as a former atheist) see them as great lies as well as fables and fairy tales. I consider them the lies of the soul enemy through which he tries to turn people away from God and doubt his existence. Modern moral conceptions, which are increasingly divergent from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, I see as similar lies. In them it is often talked about human rights, love, and tolerance, but is not taken into account what new perceptions of morality cause for children. They greatly increase the suffering of children as well as the costs to society. How do new moral notions take root in society? In general, the following formula can be seen in them: 1. A few loud individuals will proclaim new moral that abandons behavior which for centuries has been considered right. 2. The media gives space to the representatives of the new moral and considers them as some kinds of heroes: 3. Gallup polls enforce the shift. When more and more people begin to support the new practice, it affects others reading the polls. 4. The fourth phase happens when legislators confirm the new practice as the new norm and right way to act. The following letter relates to the subject. Its purpose has been to open up the spiritual eyes of journalists, even though it seems almost impossible. Journalists like other people are in spiritual blindness, and only God can open their spiritual eyes, even if He uses people as intermediaries. In any case, the following is a letter I sent. It addresses two areas: 1. science / 2. morality
Hey! This is Jari Iivanainen from Lahti. I believe in Jesus and I have prayed for years that lies in our society would break. I have prayed for spiritual revival, and that people would understand to turn to Jesus. The subject I write about is spiritual blindness and madness manifested in journalists in two areas: science and morality. Namely, many journalists (and others of us) think they themselves are sensible and advanced, but in reality, they may believe ridiculous lies or drive things that are harmful. They repeatedly bring up these views in their writings and thus mislead others. For example, Helsingin sanomat has advertised on its sites: “There is a greater need for facts now than ever before”, and this is a good idea. However, if journalists are ruled by spiritual blindness, they drift into believing and writing things against factual information. They have become blind leaders of the blind, of whom Jesus warned: “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch.” (Matthew 15:14) How, then, does spiritual blindness manifest itself in the realm of science? I will deal with it first. I argue that it manifests itself precisely in a way that forbids God’s work of creation and that is believed that all evolved of itself from the same stem cell over millions of years. Of course, I understand that most immediately think that my claims are false. However, it is worth considering the teaching of the Bible on how Satan, or the enemy of the soul, can deceive people. This teaching appears e.g. in the following verses:
- (2 Cor 4:3,4) But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.
- (Eph 4:17,18) 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you from now on walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
The Bible also shows how the wisdom of this world is foolish and how Paul warned against false information passing by the name of knowledge. It is precisely atheistic theories of world and life birth that I consider to be such misinformation.
- (1 Cor 1:19,20) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
- (1 Tim 6:20,21) 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.
I can also justify my views on the spiritual blindness that Paul wrote about. I will cite a few examples of how atheistic views are contrary to common sense and also contrary to real science. I will start with the Big Bang, which is usually mentioned as the standard explanation for the beginning of the universe.
•
Big Bang-theory is the notion that it all started in a small dot whose volume was the size of a pinhead. In his book Big Bang, Joseph Silk explained this (bold added):
This thing and its rationality can be thought of. For example, if we look at the above drawing, it can be used as an example of an assumed initial state. For atheistic scientists seriously believe that it all started with such a small point or even a smaller space. However, can such a small space become the present universe? If this pinhead-sized space becomes just one meter high stone, it can be considered a great miracle. However, the same small dot is also said to have become millions of galaxies, hundreds of millions of stars, the earth and its moon, flying and chirping birds, big cliffs, talking and thinking people, tall trees with leaves, jumping kangaroos, elephants, fish and the sea around them and good tasty blueberries and bananas. A good reader, take the pin on your hand and think about this idea seriously! I argue that such an idea makes no sense. It is impossible that all the present complex and big things would have in themselves appeared from an empty space or a space smaller than a pinhead. This theory is against common sense and against real science. Many scientists have also taken a stand on the Big Bang. They see that it is completely contrary to the evidence and common sense, as it is:
There has been remarkably little discussion of whether or not the big bang hypothesis is correct... many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelist H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)
As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)
Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).
David Berlinski: ”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)
Did hydrogen and helium gas become human? One assumption is that in the beginning there was only hydrogen and helium gas in the wake of the Big Bang. In fact, it has formed all the things we perceive today. This is assumed in this atheistic explanation. Next, a simple question. If the universe consisted of hydrogen, how did the hydrogen change to the fish and sea around them, rocks, birds, people, flowers, trees, butterflies, lions, strawberries, and all the specialties of nature? Have scientists ever proven that hydrogen or helium can spontaneously turn into complex life forms? Does hydrogen behave in the same way today, ie has hydrogen given birth to man and all other life forms? Hydrogen and helium balls floating in the air have also been made, but have they become a life that could multiply on its own, move, eat, and feel emotions? Or is it not a fact that such is not observed? Instead, it is known that substances can at most be converted to solids, liquids or gases with changes in temperature. No forms of life are born through it. This is real science and practical observation.
Did life arise by itself? One atheist assumption is that life arose by itself. Here again, it is worth paying attention to the facts. One of them is that only "life begets life". No exceptions to this rule have been found. What does this refer to? It refers to God for the first life forms. That is, stone and other inanimate matter will never become alive on their own, start breathing, eating, feeling emotions and reproducing. The only thing that can happen is the conversion of inanimate matter into a solid, liquid, and gas with changes in external temperature. Nothing else happens. This is real experiential science. Or if you are scientific and do not accept God's work of creation, prove the origin of life itself. If the birth of life by itself is possible, it should not be difficult. To make the point clear, we quote J. Morgan's interview with Stanley Miller towards the end of his life. He has become famous for experiments related to the origin of life. J. Morgan told of the interview how Miller admitted that the origin of life is shrouded in obscurity. He was indifferent to all proposals for the origin of life, dismissing them as 'nonsense' or 'paper chemistry'. This is understandable, because the origin of life by itself is an impossibility.
He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (1)
Did all current species originate from the same primordial cell? One assumption is that all current species originated from the same primordial cell. This is called the theory of evolution, and it should be distinguished from ordinary variation and adaptation to circumstances, which is a fact. But is the inheritance of modern species from the same original cell true or not? If it is true, it should show up in fossils. However, when hundreds of millions of fossils have been excavated from the earth, no gradual development can be observed in them. Several well-known paleontologists and scientists have admitted this. The first of the comments is from Darwin, who himself stated that if the fossil record was perfect in his time, it disproved his theory. Another of the comments is from Richard Dawkins, who also admitted in his book Sokea kelloseppä (The Blind Watchmaker) that gradual development is not detectable in fossils. He appealed to the inadequacy of the fossil record, just like Darwin in his time, but there is no basis for this argument anymore because of the abundance of the fossil record.
Darwin (On the Origin of Species): Those who believe that the geological narrative is more or less perfect will certainly reject my theory.
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have known that fossils arranged in chronological order are not a series of small, barely noticeable changes. - - For example, the Cambrian deposits from 600 million years ago are the oldest, with fossils from most of the main periods of vertebrates. Moreover, many of them are already quite advanced. Since there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared in these strata out of nowhere... Regardless of school of thought, all supporters of evolution are of the opinion that at this point there is a gaping hole in fossil discoveries.
It is not possible to even compile a distorted picture of an organism's evolution based on paleobiological facts. The fossil materials gathered are so perfect now that the lack of intermediate forms cannot have been caused by insufficient data. The gaps are real, and can never be filled in. (A statement of Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson approximately 50 years ago. [2])
It is strange that the gaps in the fossil material are consistent in a certain way: fossils are missing from all the important places. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 19)
None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at find out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. [3])
Stephen Jay Gould: I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (4)
Niles Eldredge: We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (5)
The assumption of millions and billions of years is one of the cornerstones of the theory of evolution. Also in the media, the idea that there has been life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years is often thrown lightly into the air. However, this idea is easy to disprove. Radiocarbon dating is the most important method of measuring the age of organic organisms in the scientific world and it shows that radiocarbon is present in fossils of all ages. Already in the 1960s, Radiocarbon magazine reported how radiocarbon has been found in fossils from the Cambrian period and other fossils that have been considered to be hundreds of millions of years old. Therefore, when radiocarbon occurs in these fossils, it must be fossils that are at most a few millennia old. Radiocarbon, which has an official half-life of only 5,730 years, also occurs in coal deposits that have been thought to be 300 million years old. According to Radiocarbon magazine, no coal has been found that lacks radiocarbon (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, Radiocarbon 31 (2): 117-120, 1989). What does this mean? When the half-life of radiocarbon is only 5730 years, there can be none left even after a hundred thousand years. The findings point to shorter periods. Evidence of the young age of the coal deposits are also the discoveries related to people. When a gold chain, an iron cauldron, other goods and human fossils have been found in coal deposits "from 300 million years ago", it cannot be a question of hundreds of millions of years old deposits (Glashouver, WJJ, So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert / February, 1975, pp. 36-39). In his book Time Upside Down (1981), Erich A. von Frange has listed more objects found in coal, such as 1. a small steel cube 2. an iron hammer 3. an iron instrument 4. a nail 5. a bell-shaped metal vessel 6. a bell 7. a child's jawbone 8. a human skull 9. two human molars 10. fossilized human foot. These types of discoveries show that the ideas of hundreds of millions of years of stratification and the development of organisms from the same primordial cell are baseless science fiction. You shouldn't believe them.
Dinosaurs and dragons. As for the lifespan of dinosaurs on Earth, we are repeatedly told in TV shows and magazines that they became extinct more than 65 million years ago. However, this notion cannot be true. Dinosaur fossils have a lot of internal metrics that testify against millions of years. Blood cells have been found within these bones [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993], hemoglobin, soft tissues, and fragile proteins. None of these substances could survive in nature for hundreds of thousands of years, let alone millions of years. Radiocarbon has also been found in dinosaurs, although its official half-life is only 5,730 years. In August 2012, at a meeting of geophysicists, a joint meeting of the Asia Oceania Geoscience Society and the American Geophysical Union, a team of German scientists reported radiocarbon measurement results made from many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the results, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! (http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html.) In addition, DNA has been isolated from dinosaurs and their eggs [Sarfati, J. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation (1): 10-12, 2013; creation.com/dino-dna, 11 December 2012], which is not always met even from old human mummies or mammoths. The half-life of DNA has been calculated to be only 521 years, so it is impossible for it to occur in fossils that are millions of years old. (The half-life of 521 years was reported in the news: DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat (the deadline for DNA survival became clear - dreams of cloning dinosaurs waned); yle.fi> Uutiset> Tiede, 13 October 2012). What about human descriptions of dinosaurs? This name - dinosaur - was not invented until the 19th century, but old folk tales tell of great dragons and lizards resembling dinosaurs. The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) narrates these accounts: “The dragons of legends are, miraculously, like real animals that have lived in the past. They resemble much of the large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the earth long before man was supposed to have appeared. Dragons were usually evil and destructive. Every nation knew them in their mythology. ” One example of how dinosaurs may have actually been dragons is also the Chinese horoscope. It is known to be centuries old. Thus, when the Chinese horoscope is based on 12 animal signs that are repeated in 12-year cycles, 12 animals are involved. Of these, 11 are still familiar today: rat, bull, tiger, hare, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig. Instead, the 12th animal is a dragon that does not exist today. The good question is that if 11 animals have been real and well-known everyday animals, why would a dragon be an exception and a mythical creature? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that in ancient times it lived at the same time as humans, but has become extinct like numerous other animals? It is good to remember again that the name dinosaur was not invented until the 19th century by Richard Owen. Before that, the name dragon was used for centuries. The Bible also mentions dragons several times (e.g. Jer 51:37: And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling place for Dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.). In connection with this, an interesting commentary on the subject can be found from the esteemed late fossil researcher Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Marxist atheist. He noted that when the book of Job talks about Behemoth, the only animal to which this description fits is the dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist, he believed that the author of the book of Job must have gotten his knowledge of the fossils found. However, this one of the oldest books of the Bible clearly refers to a living animal (Job 40: 15-17: 15 Behold now Behemoth, which I made with you; they eats grass as an ox.…). What about the Old Testament apocryphal books? They also refer to dragons several times and are considered real animals and not mythical creatures. In Sirach’s book, the author says he would rather live with a lion and a dragon than with an evil wife. Additions in the book of Esther tell of the dream of Mardoch (Mordecai of the Bible) when he saw two great dragons. This indicates that these animals could grow to large sizes.
- (Sirach 25:16) I had rather dwell with a lion and a dragon, than to keep house with a wicked woman.
- (Wisdom of Salomon 16:10) But thy sons not the very teeth of venomous dragons overcame: for thy mercy was ever by them, and healed them.
- (Additions to Esther 1:1,4,5,6) Mordecai, a Jew who belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, was taken into exile, along with King Jehoiachin of Judah, when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia captured Jerusalem. Mordecai was the son of Jair, a descendant of Kish and Shimei. 4 He dreamed that there was great noise and confusion, loud thunder, and an earthquake, with terrible turmoil on the earth. 5 Then two huge dragons appeared, ready to fight each other. 6 They made a dreadful noise, and all the nations got ready to make war against God's nation of righteous people.
Reporting on human evolution. In the media, the assumption that humans evolved from somewhat ape-like creatures over the course of a few million years is repeatedly brought up. It is assumed that the theory of evolution is true, even though it was already stated above that it contradicts the evidence. Why then should we not believe in human development from ape-like ancestors? The main reason is fossil material. It was already stated above that the remains and goods of modern humans have even been found in carbon deposits and deposits considered to be ancient. What does this mean? It shows that modern humans must be much older or at least as old as their supposed ancestors. This refutes the evolution of man from primitive ape-like creatures. Another reason is that only two groups are actually known from this area in the fossil record: monkeys and humans. One of the ancestors of man has been considered to be Australopithecus, but it is clearly an ordinary ape. The shape of its skull is ape-like and the brain size is only about a third of the volume of a modern human brain (the volume of the skull of the most famous representative of the Australopithecus, Lucy, has been measured to be just over 400 cm3) In addition, its body structure is ape-like:
Solly Zuckerman: Our discoveries leave hardly any doubt that (…) the Australopithecus does not resemble the Homo sapiens; instead, it resembles the modern guenons and anthropoids. (6)
Well-known fossil scientist Richard Leakey talks more about this in his book The Origin of Humankind. He cites studies related to the movement of Australopithecus. According to research, Australopithecus (southern apes) were ape-like, while all homo species have a human-like structure:
A few years ago, Robert Martin’s colleague, anthropologist Peter Schmid from Zürich, got the opportunity to study the famous Lucy fossil. Using fiberglass casts made from the fossilized bones, Schmid began to construct Lucy’s skeleton. He expected it to be shaped like a human skeleton. Schmid was astonished by the result: Lucy’s ribcage was a conical shape; it made her look more like a primate than a human, whose ribcage is barrel-shaped. Lucy’s shoulders, body, and waist also had strong ape-like features… Modern primates are heavily built in comparison to their height: they weigh twice as much as a human with the same height. It was now also possible to put fossil measures into two clear and already familiar groups. Southern apes’ body structure was ape-like, and all the Homo species’ body structure was human-like.
If Austalopithecus was an ordinary ape, then we are left with Homo Habilis, Homo erectus and Neanderthal. However, Habilis has always been a dubious find because only a few bone fragments have been found. Many researchers do not even consider Homo habilis as an authentic class, but think it is a mixture of different classes. According to some estimates, it may have been even more ape-like than Lucy, the most famous member of the Australopithecus genus. How about a Neanderthal? In his fairly recent book "Neanderthalinihminen, kadonnut lajitoveri" (2015), Juha Valste has brought out how the image of Neanderthals has constantly changed among researchers. They used to be considered a bit ape-like, but not anymore:
The one-sided image of Neanderthal man that I had early on began to change when, later in the 1960s, I got my hands on new books dealing with human evolution. They had taken into account the mistakes that Boule had made in describing the structure, postures and mental abilities of Neanderthal man. In France, the reputation of Neanderthals had already been "cleansed" in the mid-1950s. They had turned into real people…. While writing books and articles about human evolution and lecturing about it at the University of Helsinki from 2002 to 2011, I had to renew the parts about Neanderthals every year. … Just about none of the things that “everyone knows” about Neanderthals are true. The few things that are even roughly true are interpreted differently nowadays than they were in the middle of the 20th century. Since the middle of the 20th century, researchers have been forced to change one perception after another... However, we can just as well consider that we belong to the same species as the Neanderthals. The name of this species is man – modern man and Neanderthal were two different subspecies, both exactly the same distance from chimpanzee.
Homo erectus. If Homo habilis was an obscure class and Neanderthal was a ordinary human, as the finds show, then all that remains is Homo erectus. However, several facts suggest that he was also an ordinary human. The size of his brain is the same as that of modern humans, he walked upright like a human, in addition, tool and culture discoveries have been made in connection with he, so he was definitely a human. Another interesting feature is that several fossil researchers have considered Homo erectus to be an ordinary human. They have proposed to associate Homo erectus with the species Homo sapiens, because the boundaries between these groups are artificial and do not correspond to practical observations. It means that Homo erectus was actually a genuine modern man.
Gabriel Ward Lasker: Homo erectus differs from modern humans (Homo sapiens), but the differences tend to be exaggerated. Even if we ignore intermediate forms or otherwise difficult-to-classify individuals and limit our consideration to the populations of Java and Beijing, the range of many features of Homo erectus fits the range of modern humans. (7)
Donald C. Johanson: It would be interesting to know if a modern man and a million-year-old Homo erectus woman could have a child together. A strong hunch says they might. The evolution that has taken place is probably not the kind that would prevent successful mating. But this does not invalidate the correctness of the species definition above, since the two cannot mate. Time separates them two in the sense of procreation. (8)
The last comment refers to Milford Wolpoff, who has also proposed to include Homo Erectus in the category Homo sapiens. What makes this evolutionist paleontologist's statement remarkable is that he is said to have seen more of the original hominid fossil record than anyone else.
Wolpoff has been one of the loudest evolutionists who have demanded that the Homo erectus class should be connected to the Homo sapiens. He writes together with Wu Xin Zhin (Institute of Paleoanthropology, Beijing) and Alan G. Thorn (National University of Australia): “According to our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the boundary between Homo erectus / Homo sapiens is arbitrary and use a non-morphological (or chronological) criterion for its defining, or Homo erectus should be connected to [Homo sapiens].” (9) Connecting Homo erectus to Homo sapiens means that all “classes” in evolution-theoretical line from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens. These would include the early Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo ergaster and the Neanderthals. (Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä)
What can be inferred from previous information (e.g. the discovery of human fossils and goods from carbon deposits)? They suggest that modern humans have been on earth since the beginning and that the inheritance of all species from the same original cell has never happened. These are lies, fables and fairy tales that are believed in vain. Instead, it is much more reasonable to trust the creation teaching of the Bible and the words of Jesus. According to them, man was created at the beginning of creation, and it has not been millions of years. This agrees with the fossil record. Jesus taught:
- (Matt 19:4) And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
- (Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
We still look at Paul’s prophecy, which can be linked to the same subject. Paul predicted that people would turn to fables, and this is exactly what I see happening in the doctrine of evolution when people have abandoned faith in God as creator:
- (2 Tim 4:3.4) 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.
SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS - MEDIA DEFENDES KILLING AND ABUSE OF CHILDREN. It was stated above how there are no grounds for believing in the birth of the universe and life by itself, nor in the inheritance of species from the same primordial cell, nor in the presence of life on Earth for millions of years. These things are easy to disprove because they are against real science and evidence. People believe these things because of their spiritual blindness, because they have been deceived by the devil. They believe they are scientific, but are actually deceived by the devil's lies. How does spiritual blindness affect morality? One indication of this is that society accepts things that are clearly harmful and against God's will. Many then immediately think of something like Nazi Germany, but they don't see the obvious evil in modern times. Here are some examples:
Tolerant people support child murders
- (Mark 10:19) You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother.
Narrative: Once upon a time there were two groups. Both groups spoke for human rights and love. Both of these groups also agreed that 10-year-olds were real children who should not be killed. The groups were very unanimous on this issue. Instead, the difference between the two groups appeared in their attitude towards 5-year-olds. Group 1 considered them as equal people to 10-year-old children. The members of Group 2, on the other hand, thought that the 5-year-olds were not real children but some kind of lumps of tissue. Therefore, their lives could be ended if the parents so desired. How does this relate to the topic being addressed? In short, it is precisely the same kind of issue that is at stake in abortion. All journalists and other people generally consider a child outside the womb to be a real person, and say that children’s rights should be defended. However, when it comes to smaller and younger children inside the womb, they claim else. They say it is no longer a human being, but a lump of tissue or part of the mother's body. However, it must be taken into account that a child in the womb is a different matter from his/her mother and has the same body members as e.g. 10 year old or 5 year old children have; i.e. head, eyes, nose, mouth, hands, feet etc. A person who has done many abortions says:
You can't have an abortion with your eyes closed. You have to make sure that everything comes out of the womb and calculate that there will be enough arms and legs, chest and brain. Then when the patient wakes up from anesthesia and asks if it was a girl or a boy, the limit of my endurance has been reached and that's when I usually walk away. - If I do a procedure where I clearly kill a living being, I think it's nonsense to talk about destroying a budding life. It is killing, and I experience it as killing.”(10)
From here it is good to move to tolerance. That is, many journalists often present themselves as tolerant, progressive and moderate. However, it fails in this one issue, i.e. they support killing children. They are comfortable with the fact that unwanted children can be killed. They consider it a parents' human right that a child can be killed in the mother's womb. However, one may ask if this is any different compared to how Hitler killed people in the gas chambers or how the Canaanites burned their children in the fire that raised the wrath of God (Ps. 106: 37,38: Yes, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to Devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the Idols of Canaan…)? The only way to deny this is to deny that the child in the womb is a real person, as the following quote shows.
If it is so that a developing fetus is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. Only a few think that the government should let parents decide on their own, whether they want to be responsible for killing their child… Those, who are willing to defend women’s right to abortion, should make a statement on the argument that a developing fetus is equivalent to a human being, and then try to demonstrate, why the argument is wrong. It is not enough to say that the law should be neutral when it comes to moral and religious questions. Defending the right to abortion is equally as unneutral as demanding to ban it. Both parties await for an answer for this moral and religious dispute, which lies in the background. (11)
Tolerant people and children
- (Mark 10:19) You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother.
- (1 Cor 7:2) 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Above we discussed abortion, which can be considered murder, because it clearly ends the life of a developing child. The fact that it is a child is a scientific and biological fact that cannot be denied. This was admitted in a recent study that asked 5,577 biologists around the world when life began. 96 percent of them said it starts at conception (Erelt, S., Survey asked, 5,577 biologists when human life begins. 96% said conception; lifenews.com, 11 july 2019). Similarly, in the declaration of the World Medical Association in Geneva in 1948, when the unethical actions of Nazi doctors had been revealed, it was stated that human life begins at conception: "I hold human life in the highest esteem since conception, and I do not use my medical skills against the laws of humanity, even under threat." What about other developments in society? In modern times, many journalists and "modern" people arrogantly reject the Christian faith. They say that we are now living in the 21st century and have progressed morally from what previous generations were. They think that the current generation is morally wiser than, for example, our grandparents were. It manifests itself especially in relation to sexuality, where the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in these areas are ignored in modern times. So now divorce, cohabitation, premarital sex and homosexuality are viewed more and more positively. Before these things were considered wrong, now right. But has society progressed morally, as many who reject the Christian faith think? So if progress has been made, it should have been made in all areas. However, the following news shows that people's behavior towards each other has worsened, and the sickness of children and young people has increased. The direction of development is clearly negative, which also results in a huge increase in society's expenses:
Almost a billion euros will soon be used in institutional care for children and youth Children's problems have escalated dramatically since the early 1990s ...The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year while proactive supporting measures in outpatient care could be offered with a couple of thousand euros. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31 October 2010)
“Violence among children is becoming more common …Aggressiveness of small children has increased in Finland (ESS 20.11.2013)
Youth referrals almost doubled Psychiatry: The mental health problems of young people have increased in recent years across the country. In Päijät-Häme, the number of referrals of young psychiatry increased by 40 per cent per year. (ESS, 30.5.2017)
Young people's minds faltering. Mental health: Referrals to specialised medical care in youth psychiatry have increased dramatically... (ESS, 25.9.2018)
… As a professional of healt care, I bring to your attention the behavior of patients. When I was on call in the central hospital in the emergency room in 1974, it didn’t even come to mind that a patient would be violent or make threats. Today it occurs continuosly in the emergency room. They must have learned it from somewhere. So what happens, when no one (from Finnish people) doesn’t want to serve – or teach? With the loss of discipline, we have also lost civilized behavior. Restoration of discipline is simple, if you will. The will seems to be directed towards adapting to the consequences of indiscipline. More resources, more resources, more debt. Well, that is what the undisciplined policymakers will do. Jyrki Joensuu, a specialist doctor in general medicine and psychiatry, Lahti (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17.10.2016 / Lukijalta [Etelä-Suomen sanomat 17.10.2016 / from the reader])
Violence experienced by municipal employees has increased The job barometer of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy (TEM) shows that violence experienced by municipal employees and the threat of it have increased drastically in less than ten years. (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 15.2.2017)
A father hits his child and a son hits his mother more and more often. Violence of parents towards children has more than doubled in ten years. (ESS 3.10.2019)
The heading of the front page: School: ESS poll reveals, teachers have subjected to violence, vandalism, threats and parents’ rage
The poll that the teachers took part in: How do you think the behavior of students has changed over the last few years? 2,6% it has gotten better 23,1% it has stayed the same 74,4% it has gotten worse
The poll of OAJ: Students are the worst bullies to teachers in the whole country according to the poll 50% of elementary school teachers have experienced bullying over the last year. (ESS, 23.10.2016)
Intoxicants take younger and younger to institutions. The number of notifications and the cost of institutional care have increased enormously. (ESS 7.11.2019)
Divorce is costly for many Economist Pasi Sorjonen of Nordea Bank wonders why the financial impact of divorces is not discussed much even though divorces are very common and the financial impact caused by a divorce can be great for the people involved. A study by Nordea Bank suggests that a divorce can lower the living standard of a family even more than unemployment. It is a very extensive social phenomenon: almost half of marriages now end in divorce. "Divorces are very costly to the society," says Executive Director Heljä Sairisalo of the Finnish single-parent family association. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 25 January 2011)
The rate of giving allowances is accelerating in Finland… Housing allowance is being paid at a more and more rapid rate. In November Kela paid public housing allowances for over 93 million euros, when the same amount last year in November was a little under 87 million euros and in the year before that it was 65 million euros. The total sum of the money that goes into public housing allowances has doubled in the 21th century.. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat 8.1.2017)
Nausea in children, as well as people's bad behavior, has therefore increased all the time. In addition, society's social costs have grown enormously, as the previous news showed. But what is the reason for the increase in child nausea and misbehavior? I am convinced that the cause is abandoning of God and Christian values, which began in the 1960s. The following couple of facts show the direction of development:
• Still in the 1950s, those couples who lived together without marriage and commitment were considered wolf couples. In addition, only 5% of children (in Finland) were born out of wedlock as late as the late 1960s. This shows how the Christian teaching on marriage and its permanence was respected during the time of our grandparents and parents. It also benefited children who were allowed to grow up in intact families. Then the sexual revolution began in the late 1960s. It emphasized, not the amount of sex, but that one can have sexual intercourse without commitment and marriage. This was the first aggravation for the children, as the children could be born in a situation where both parents were not present at home. The second deterioration occurred in 1987, when divorce in Finland was made easier. It no longer required the consent of both spouses, but either spouse alone could apply for the divorce and enforce it. Thus, the result was a drastic increase in the number of divorces, and most of the divorces concerned marriages where there were no serious problems. The following quote is related to the topic. It describes how development started more than 50 years ago. In his book (Avoliitto, avioliitto, perhe, p. 12-14), Matti Joensuu, who worked in family counseling, described how people who suggested that it is right to have sex without commitment and marriage came to the fore. At the same time, free abortion was called for and there was talk of homosexuality, so the seeds for current development were sown then. Now we get to reap the harvest of what these people accomplished. They were considered by the media as some kind of hero, so the media has had a big impact on the break-up of families, the increase in child nausea, and the increase in the cost to society (bold added):
I was away from my homeland for three years, the years 1965 to 1968. When I returned in the autumn of 1968, I was very surprised at the change that had taken place in the atmosphere of public conversation. This concerned both the tone of conversation and also the framing of questions. (...) In the student world, those who demanded justification of sexual relationships were the ones blowing their trombones loudly. They insisted, for instance, that boys and girls should be allowed to live together in university dormitories even though they were not married. It seemed that the Teen League had been taken over by new leaders who proclaimed not only socialism and school democracy, but also the idea of free sexual relations. All in all, what was new was that reference groups had formed that spoke much more openly about gender issues than had previously been customary in public, accusing society and the Church of applying double standards. The tone of the conversation was to a large extent ethical. Morality was considered evil. It was reproached. At the same time, however, new morality was proclaimed, often in a very moralistic and intolerant manner. Whereas in the past there was talk of understanding the sexual behaviour of young people, some groups declared now that it is right to have casual sexual relations. The institution of marriage and real genuine love were even contrasted. Couples living unlegalized cohabitation were interviewed in public as some kind of heroes of a new morality who dared to stand up against the morality of a degenerate bourgeois society. Similarly, homosexuals were interviewed and free abortion was called for.
The following quotes show how important it is to have both parents in the family. The situation was still like this at the end of the 1960s, when only 5% of children were born out of wedlock (in 1990, the number was around 25%), but now the number is over 50%, meaning that the parents are not properly committed to each other. More and more children are growing up in single-parent families, which in some regions is the most common form of family. Especially the father is absent from the family. Fertilization treatments for single women or female couples are also a new trend. This separates the child from his own father from the beginning of life, which can be considered very harmful for children, especially boys. So the following quotes show how important it is to have both parents in the family. The first quote tells about children who have difficulties in school. However, the reason is most often that the father is absent from the family:
When I was speaking at a certain men's camp in Hume Lake in California, I mentioned that the average father spends only three minutes of quality time with his child a day. After the meeting, one man questioned my information. He scolded, "You preachers only say things. According to the latest research, the average father doesn't spend even three minutes daily with his children, but 35 seconds." I believe him because he worked as a school inspector in central California. Actually, he gave me another startling statistic. In a certain school district in California there were 483 students in special education. None of those students had a father at home. In a certain area on the outskirts of Seattle, 61% of children live without a father. The absence of a father is a curse nowadays. (12)
If we were asked to design a system to ensure all children’s basic needs are being taken care of, we would probably end up somewhere, what is similar to the ideal of having two parents. In theory, this kind of plan does not only ensure that the children get two adult’s time and resources, it also provides a controlling and balancing system, which promotes high-class parenthood. Both parent’s biological relationship with the child increases the probability that the parents are able to identify themselves with the child and are ready to make sacrifices for the child. It also decreases the probability of the parents exploiting the child. (13)
“Modern” people defend the abuse of children and young people. It was noted above how journalists and "progressive" people accept the murder of children and have favored the kind of sexual behavior that has actually been adult selfishness towards a child. One of the consequences is the increased costs to society and the increase in child nausea. The trend has been getting worse in this area. One of the trends of today is also favoring homosexuality. It appears repeatedly in the media. But what is the reason for this current trend? When trying to understand why many in today’s society advocate homosexual behavior, the main reason is certainly that many see the homosexual tendency as an innate trait, just like skin color. It is thought that if it is a congenital trait such as skin color or left-handedness, is it not right then to defend a homosexual lifestyle and people who have such a trait? Isn’t it right to support people in their sexual choices? Many representatives of the Christian gay movement have also invoked to the notion that homosexuality is inborn. Liisa Tuovinen, the director of the Yhteys-movement, presented this general perception in a TV discussion as early as 2002:
After all, Paul has no concept of homosexuality, which is such an innate human characteristic that it cannot be changed. (14)
But what is the truth of the matter? Many homosexuals themselves deny the idea of inborn feature. Some may argue that it's innate, but many admit that same-sex sexual seduction and circumstances played a role in the birth of their tendencies. These were common concepts also in psychology a few decades ago. Here are quotes from interviews with homosexuals (emphasis added later):
Ole does not believe, however, that there is some kind of a "homosexual gene". He believes that the causes of homosexual feelings are more complex, and he mentions, for instance, that he knows many pairs of identical twins of which only one of the pair is homosexual. Ole believes that many factors contributed to his behaviour, such as his complex and poor relationship with his father when he was a child. Ole does not hold back when telling about his relationship with his father as a child. He felt that his father was never there and he feared his father. The father sometimes had a raging fit, and Ole felt a few times that his father intentionally humiliated him in public. Ole says bluntly that he hated his father. (15)
Harri is interested in the discussion about homosexuality in the media and studies about homosexuality. He is convinced that homosexuality has very little to do with congenital factors. He bases this view on, for instance, the fact that it is often easy to find out why people have homosexual inclinations. They have usually been subjected to sexual violence or have a difficult relationship with their parents or peers. "This has convinced me that it is not first and foremost about genes. However, I don't think that it is impossible for some people to have some genes that make them more susceptible to homosexual inclinations," Harri says. (16)
In her case, Tepi believes that homosexuality is due to the fact that she has some kind of emotional deficit that she is trying to fill. Tepi says she was afraid of her father as a child and still has "such a fear of men". Tepi says she is looking for a mother among women. Although Tepi thinks about the reasons for her lesbianism, she also says about her crush on women: "As it has gone kind of shockingly naturally, I've sometimes really wondered how it can go that way." On the other hand, she believes that there is a reason for this, too. Tepi does not believe that homosexuality is due to genes or that a person can be gay or lesbian from birth. In her opinion, a person grows up gay or lesbian, even without any special disorders. (17)
Of course, I, like many gay people, wonder where homosexuality comes from. I believe that a child's personality is formed during the first three years of life, including sexually. This is influenced by both the environment and human biology. I do not believe at all that homosexuality is hereditary. For some of my relatives, my homosexuality is hard precisely because they fear its heritability. (18)
Bill Hybels: I read an interesting study by an expert: it was a survey to find out how many actively homosexual people believed they were born that way. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees were of the opinion that their homosexuality was a learned way of behaving caused by destructive influence early on in their home and enticement by another person. Nowadays, my first question when meeting with a homosexual is usually, “Who gave you the inspiration for it?” All of them can answer me. I will ask then, “What would have happened to you and your sexuality if you hadn’t met your uncle, or if your cousin had not come into your life? Or without your stepfather? What do you think would have happened?” This is when the bells start to toll. They say, “Maybe, maybe, maybe.” (19)
Dear reader of the message! If homosexuality is not an innate trait, then what is it? That was evident from the last quote. It referred to how most homosexuals felt that the devastating impact of the home and the seduction of another person were the biggest reasons. Thus, there is often in backround mental violence, sexual exploitation and the absence of a father or mother (The absence of father and mother is indicated by an extensive study. It found that 27% of lesbians and 2% of heterosexual women had experienced the loss of a mother before the age of 10. The ratio is thus more than ten times higher). All of these point to the effect of conditions and the human response to them. So what does the previous one mean? When many defend homosexual behavior and are on Pride-marches, they are actually supporting the fact that children and young people have been treated bad or even sexually exploited. Isn't that the case? That is, if it is not a congenital trait but a traumatic experience, these people indirectly give their support to human abuse. Surely no one directly supports the abuse of children and young people, but indirectly they do support it when flagging for a homosexual lifestyle. Thus, a person’s past can affect his or her current attitudes and lives, as it manifests in the lives of homosexuals. It has also been found that criminals, prostitutes or, for example, alcoholics often have a broken background and growing conditions. They may come from difficult circumstances, but it is not the circumstances themselves that cause their behavior, but their own choices and how they react to the past. Thus, no one should justify their misconduct by past circumstances. Jesus' teaching to all of us is, "...except you repent, you shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13: 3). This applies to practitioners of homosexuality, prostitutes, criminals but also other sinful people like we all are by nature. What about trans people? Many of them have the kind of background that being small they have been wanted to be the opposite sex, and this has affected them. It is difficult for them to accept their own gender. The fault is not in the body or that someone was born into the wrong sex (as is often falsely portrayed in the media), but in an inner attitude. Dissatisfaction is common in other areas as well. Someone may be dissatisfied with their appearance, their muscles, or experience feelings of inferiority and strive to win the acceptance of others and themselves through accomplishments, drugs, or alcohol. Similarly, the eating disorder anorexia nervosa originates from dissatisfaction, i.e., a person’s dissatisfaction with their current weight, even if they are quite lean. The fault is not in his/her body, but that he/she does not accept himself/herself as such and believes he/she is happier when being leaner. In this way, past experiences and a person’s dissatisfaction with themselves can affect everyone’s life. The fault does not have to be in anyone’s body or appearance but in internal thinking, i.e. dissatisfaction with the current body. The concluding remark from the previous is that it is good for us to understand different people and not to judge them. However, everyone must admit that his/her thinking may go astray and be wrong. Jesus also taught about false inner attitudes and lusts and how they come from within man:
- (Mark 7:20-23) And he said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Dear reader! I went through the most common lies I see in society. The first of the lies was to deny the existence of God and that He is the Creator. It is impossible and irrational that all the celestial bodies, the earth, and the complex life of the earth were born without God. The evidence clearly points to his existence and work of creation, as Paul wrote. Only spiritual blindness can prevent us from seeing this clear fact:
- (Rom 1:19-21) 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
The second area dealt with morality, which I see diverging further and further from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. This has been evidenced by the acceptance of sexual relations outside the marriage of a husband and wife: premarital sex, common-law marriages, and homosexual sex. These things are increasingly accepted, and there is no desire to respect the teaching of traditional husband-wife marriage, which has been found to be the most functional model for children as well as the most socially economical way of caring for children. Other options are more expensive and inferior. Second, the change in morality is reflected in the deterioration of behavior toward others, as the news mentioned earlier showed. Jesus taught to love even enemies (Matt. 5: 43-48); likewise Peter taught, “Honor all men” (1 Peter 2:17), but from these teachings have also been drifted away further and further. The direction seems to be getting worse all the time. Then the most important thing. Spiritual blindness is also manifested in the most important thing: man does not see how Jesus, the Son of God, is the truth and the only way to God. While man himself may consider himself tolerant, in reality he may be intolerant to Jesus Christ, who is man’s only chance to experience the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. However, as Jesus himself taught, there are no other ways to God, and if a person rejects Jesus, he himself will have to pay for his sins in hell. For though Jesus has borne the sins of us all on the cross, this does not benefit the man who rejects Jesus. Such a person rejects his only chance of salvation. It’s a similar thing like giving a drowning person a chance to get into a lifeboat, but he doesn’t care about it. As a result, he drowns. So, dear reader of the message, do not reject Jesus, that you will not have to pay for your sins in hell! Consider the following words from Jesus:
- (John 14:6) 6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
- (John 5:39,40) 39 Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.
- (Rev 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Final comment! I urge you to take a step in the direction of God and Jesus. If Jesus is the way to God, then why not welcome Him into your life? You should definitely do it, that is, to give your whole life to God and put your trust in Jesus in the matter of salvation. So you can say a prayer like this, where it happens: “Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.”
References:
1. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley 2. Heribert Nilsson: Synthetische artbildung, 1953, p. 1212 – Quote from "Evoluutio - tieteen harha-askel?", Mikko Tuuliranta. 3. Quote from "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19. 4. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 5. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution 6. Solly Zuckerman: Beyond the ivory tower, 1970, p. 90 – Quote from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. wit. p. 94. 7. Gabriel Ward Lasker: Physical Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973), 284 8. Donald C. Johanson ja Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 144 9. Milford H. Wolpoff, Wu Xin Zhi ja Alan G. Thorne, ”Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving the Fossil Evidence From East Asia”, teoksessa The Origins of Moodern Humans, toim. Fred H. Smith ja Frank Spencer (New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1984), 465-66. 10. Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970 11. Michael J. Sandel: Oikeudenmukaisuus (Justice. What’s the Right Thing to Do?), p. 283,284 12. Edwin Louis Cole: Miehuuden haaste, p. 104 13. Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur: Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, p. 38 14. Liisa Tuovinen, ”Synti vai siunaus?” Inhimillinen tekijä. TV2, 2.11.2004, klo 22.05. 15. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 104 16. Espen Ottosen: Minun homoseksuaalit ystäväni (”Mine homofile venner”), p. 131 17. Lesboidentiteetti ja kristillisyys, p. 87, Seta julkaisut 18. Sinikka Pellinen: Homoseksuaalinen identiteetti ja kristillinen usko, p. 77, Teron kertomus 19. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132
Responsible or irresponsible journalism?
Read how the Christian faith has improved human rights and conditions of people
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
Responsible or irresponsible journalism?
Read how the Christian faith has improved human rights and conditions of people
|
